This entry is on two distinct though related themes: the threatened death of the West resulting from non-European immigration; and the question whether a society that accepts the fatalist view of man propagated by Darwinism can resist these suicidal trends and save itself.

(Note July 25: I have added further explanations of my reply to Richard W.)

In an important article at Vdare, “Race Differences, Immigration, and the Twilight of the European Peoples,” Richard Lynn starts by concisely summarizing the IQ differences among the races. Caribbean blacks, for example have an IQ of 71, and South Asians of 84. Because 50 percent of IQ is environmental, the IQ of Caribbean blacks might rise from 71 to 86 after immigration to Britain (halving the difference with the white British average of 100 IQ), but will not get higher than that. Similarly, the IQ of South Asians might increase from 84 to 92, but will not get higher than that.

Moving on to demography, Lynn says that if the immigration and fertility trends of the last fifty years continue, “by 2061 about two thirds of the population of Britain will be of non-European origin, while about one third will be white.” He argues that the already existing numbers of non-Europeans in all Western countries make a cessation of immigration impossible. Politicians will not oppose immigration as they fear electoral defeat and nonwhite civil unrest. While Lynn does not say this, it’s implied that the only way the loss of Europeanness can be stopped is by the Western nations ceasing to be democratic.

Here is the concluding part of the article, followed by my response:

Only one conclusion is possible. The rate of increase of the non-European population could be slower or it could be faster than the projections given in Table 4 but the broad picture is clear and inescapable: at some point in the foreseeable future the white British people will become a minority in these islands, and whites will likewise become minorities throughout the economically developed nations of European peoples.

As the proportion of non-Europeans grows in Europe and in the United States (and also in Canada and Australia) and eventually become majorities, the intelligence of the populations will fall. The strength of the economies will equally inevitably decline to the level of developing nations.

World leadership will pass to Russia and Eastern Europe, and to China and Japan, if these manage to resist the invasion of non- European peoples.

We are living in an extraordinary time. Nothing like this has ever occurred in human history. Mass immigration of non-Europeans will inevitably result in the European peoples becoming minorities and then increasingly small minorities in their own countries, as they are in most of Latin America and the Caribbean islands. Throughout the Western world the European peoples are allowing themselves to be replaced in their own homelands by non-Europeans.

What is even more remarkable is that the European peoples have become quite complacent about their own elimination. Some even welcome it. Hardly a week goes by without some intellectual or politician declaring that immigration has been good for the country, that “in our diversity is our strength” and “we must celebrate our differences”.

Others announce that they look forward to the day when whites become a minority.

This is the first time in the whole of human history that a people has voluntarily engineered in its own destruction.

I thank Richard Lynn for writing this article. I disagree with him on a key point. The main factor preventing the cessation of non-European immigration is not fear of nonwhite unrest and reaction, but whites’ own positive belief in non-European immigration, their deeply held view that it is morally wrong to exclude or discriminate against people on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, culture, and most of all race. If the still large white majorities of the West decided that they didn’t want non-European immigration to continue, it would stop. So our prospects are not as desperate as Lynn imagines. It is not true that no remedy is possible. Rather, no remedy is possible within our present belief system, our modern liberal belief system which requires us to commit national suicide. That’s why our existence as peoples and societies depends on replacing that belief system with one that upholds the validity of our historic nations and cultures and the necessity of preserving them. Not that such a change is going to be easy either, of course. Given the current entrenched power of liberalism over our societies, and over the mind of virtually every individual in those societies, our situation is indeed grim. But it is not hopeless. I think it is entirely possible that the demographic and ideological trends that are currently leading to civilizational suicide, and that now seem so irreversible, will be reversed. And the first step of that reversal is the total rejection—within each one of us—of modern liberalism. As the number of non-liberals in Western society increases, and as the hideous problems caused by liberalism also increase, a change in overall political direction will become possible.

* * *

I would further respectfully suggest that one reason Richard Lynn may feel so hopeless about the possibility of the West’s changing course is his materialism. If you think that materialist, determinist, Darwinian forces control everything in human life, if you think that God is non-existent and that the part of man that believes in God and higher truth is stupid, then you can grasp neither the spiritual nature (which could be described as secularized Christianity) of the liberal beliefs that are leading to our destruction, nor the possibility of rejecting those false beliefs and adopting true beliefs.

There is a huge irony in the fact that many race-conscious whites are materialists who think that Christianity has brought about the ruin of the white West, yet they don’t see that their own materialism, if applied consistently, precludes any defense of the West, or, indeed, any deliberate change of belief and behavior. If man is totally controlled by material forces, namely by genetic mutations that occurred in his distant ancestors and were then naturally selected, how can he alter the direction in which he is moving? Materialists posit that a conscious mind somehow (they have no notion how) appeared on top of the material machine that is man. But this idea is as silly as that of the Catholic Darwinians who believe that all of evolution up the human stage is the result of Darwinian, materialistic processes, and then God suddenly enters the picture and adds a soul to this material being, like sticking a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae. The point is, if you believe that material forces create everything, then you deny the possibility of consciousness, and you deny the possibility of a mind capable of rejecting a false idea and adopting a true one.

Of course, materialists do believe in truth, but only of the material, deterministic kind.
This is why the notion of repentance and remission of sins seems absurd to them. Since the West must repent of its liberalism if it is to survive, and since materialists reject the idea of repentance, or, indeed, any conscious turnabout from one’s instinctively determined direction, white racial materialists are the most hopeless men alive.

________

Note: My treatment of the ideas in this entry is brief and could use further qualifications and clarifications. But sometimes blogging is about making a broad point in few words, and coming back later to tie up the loose ends and add the necessary exceptions.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

Wonderful article on “the extinction we are facing.”

I don’t always read the anti-materialist postings on your site, but the final section of the article I believe hits the main points of your ongoing critique of materialism.

Unfortunately either I don’t get it, or I don’t agree with it.

That’s a pretty rare occurrence so I’m taking a bit of time to try to gain clarity in my understanding of your ideas on this.

To critique a few points you made in the article:

Why isn’t it possible, as a materialist, to understand the spiritual under-pinnings of liberal beliefs? I can understand the spiritual underpinnings of Hopi dancing or South Pacific cargo-cults or other belief systems without believing in them.

And why can a materialist not reject liberalism? You are over-simplifying materialism to claim that most materialists ONLY believe in the physical. [LA replies: That’s what materialism means.]

I believe that most materialists view that the world contains not only the physical, but also a world of ideas and culture and laws and art and science that is the fruit of human intelligence? Most of the atheists I know would agree that those things exist outside the realm of evolution: that is the DNA molecule did not evolve the work of Chopin or Bob Dylan. [LA replies: what materialism means is that all those things are really material. Materialism says, for example, that there is no such thing as non-material human consciousness, but rather material biological processes produce consciousness which then seems to us to be non-material, but, the materialists tell us, this is an illusion. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter.]

It did evolve a human brain capable of self consciousness and self direction, but once available some combination of free will, education, culture, indoctrination and curiosity has allowed a million unique mental structures to be created by man. [LA replies: what you are doing here is what I’m always criticizing materialists for: making convenient exceptions to materialism in order to account for the non-material things the existence of which cannot be denied. Thus the Darwinians constantly tell us that all living things are the product of blind, purposeless, material forces. Now, by the very nature of existence and identity, there is no way that blind, purposeless, material forces can produce purposive consciousness and free will. Yet this is what the materialists tell us, in order to rescue their materialist belief system from facts that contradict it. In other words, all human beings know that they possess consciousness and choice. But the materialistic view of existence cannot account for consciousness and choice. To escape the rejection of materialism which must result from this simple realization, the materialists claim that non-material consciousness and purposive will can arise from blind, purposeless material processes. It is sheer double-talk, and it is only on the basis of such double-talk that modern materialist scientism survives.]

Given this view isn’t it entirely possible for anyone who appreciates human culture to make choices and support or condemn various ideas and ideologies.

(Of course what is missing in the godless universe of the materialists are the fundamental axioms of Christianity, which defines the moral framework that “good” and “bad” exist within. An atheist might still value a system or society that, for instance, created great art, or kept woman subjugated without feeling any qualms of conscience.)

In summary I don’t understand your contention that belief in materialism precludes a defense of the West. I think you have taken a reducto-ad-absurdam view of atheists. If your use of the term “materialists” is meant to segment a certain class of hardcore “genes are destiny” type of thinkers, then OK. Your critiques may be on target for that subset, but in that case you are smashing ants with a sledgehammer. [LA replies: I am saying that any consistent Darwinian materialist position, any Darwinian materialist position that eschews unprincipled exceptions to its own principles, does in fact say that “genes are destiny.” Since we came into being by a deterministic process, since all thoughts, including our adherence to suicidal liberalism, are determined by what came before us, how can we, though a conscious process of thought and valuation, reject liberalism? We cannot. We can’t do anything of our own. What I am saying is that if you insist on the reality of human choice and morality, then you must give up materialism. Which is not to say that the material is not real, but that the material is but one dimension of a larger reality.]

I believe that consciousness can be based in materialism, but not of it. Computer programs run on hardware, but are not hardware, to use an analogy. [Your analogy shows the problem with your position. If we take computer hardware as analogous to the material brain, then the software program is analogous to non-material thought and consciousness. Of course, the non-material consciousness could not exist without the material brain; but the non-material consciousness is not the same as the material brain. To repeat an analogy I’ve often used, the fact that removing a certain transistor from a TV set makes the video go dark does not mean that the video images were contained in the transistor. No, the video images were coming from outside the transistor, from a dimension of reality that, in comparison with the physical transistor, is non material. (Of course electromagnetic waves are not literally non-material, but we are making an analogy to the brain and thought.) In the same way, if you damage or disable the human brain, consciousness will be lost, but that doesn’t mean that consciousness is an aspect of the material brain. The brain is the physical instrument of something that is non-material.]

Because materialists don’t have a compelling theory of how consciousness came to exist in the human brain doesn’t (necessarily) mean that it didn’t happen. There are lots of things we observe but don’t have explanations or even good theories for. [It’s not just that they don’t have a compelling theory of how non-material consciousness arose from blind purposeless matter, it’s that it is inherently impossible for non-material consciousness to arise from blind purposeless matter.]

I know that some theories have been advanced in this area: including Marvin Minsky’s “Society of Mind” and the earlier “Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Jaynes. [Gosh, I haven’t thought of the Jaynes book in ages, it made a big splash when it came out. I don’t remember it though at the moment.]

If we are ever able to create consciousness in computers we will have shown that consciousness is quite separate from the material host that supports it. (I know many people feel this is not an achievable goal. I am agnostic on the question.)

In summary I don’t think “consciousness” and “materialism” are mutually exclusive ideas.

_______

LA adds (July 25):

I realize that the first thing some Darwinism supporters will say about my above remarks is that I am wrong and ignorant to claim that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with human consciousness, moral choice, free will, etc. But that is exactly the premise and the claim about Darwinism that I do not accept. Whether the Darwinians say that consciousness and its contents came into existence by random mutation and natural selection, or by “memes,” or by some other, vague process, there is no evident basis in the Darwinian scheme for human consciousness and thought; and, further, even when Darwinians say that of course we have consciousness and of course Darwinian evolution is compatible with consciousness, the main thrust of Darwinism is to deny the spiritual/noetic dimension of human nature and thus to undermine society’s actual belief in morality, moral choice, and true freedom.

For example, in his book, Why Evolution is True, evolutionary scientist Jerry Coyne admits not having the slightest idea how the human moral conscience arose, yet at the same time he claims that it does exist and that we can rely on it. This is a problematic statement. When the very existence of the moral conscience is founded on nothing but bald assertion,—an assertion which has no evident basis in the ruling Darwinian paradigm and in fact totally contradicts it—it will also tend to be the case that the substantive contents of morality, the things we actually believe are right and wrong, will also be based on nothing but bald assertion, or on whatever happens to fit the fashion of the moment. Thus liberal Darwinians such as Coyne say that man is capable of having moral values—and it just so happens that these moral values are identical to the relativistic/socialistic values of late liberalism. Meanwhile, the liberal Darwinians deny traditional moral values and the moral conscience that perceives them. So, even when Darwinians say that they believe in moral values (by which they mean liberal moral values), the main thrust of Darwinism is to undermine the traditional belief in man as a morally free being and thus undermine the capacity of individuals and societies to make moral and political choices. And we see the same problem among right-wing, pro-white Darwinians. They would like the white race to defend itself, but their overall material-reductionist-deterministic view of existence radically undercuts the belief in human moral choice, and thus weakens the ability of white Westerners to resist the ruling liberal paradigm vis a vis non-European immigration and to change it.

______

Richard H. writes:

I thought the same thing that you did about Lynn underestimating the effect of PC ideology on the course we’re taking. He made a similar point in his book Eugenics about immigration continuing out of fear of antagonizing non-whites. I asked him about it in an interview posted at my blog and he agreed with me:

Question: You try to explain continuing immigration to the West in political terms, saying that politicians don’t want to antagonize minorities. With anti-immigration parties popping up and winning elections all over Europe that argument really doesn’t hold. It seems a better strategy to appeal to the majority that don’t want to lose their civilization. Purely political considerations don’t explain why anti-immigration politicians are persecuted by law either; on all other topics (save maybe homosexuality) debate is allowed. Do you think you missed the ideological component of why the elites like immigration?

Richard Lynn: Yes, the relaxed attitude of political elites to continuing immigration is certainly partly attributable to political correctness ideology.

James N. writes:

I think the topic of the IQ of nations is fascinating, but the situation in India is special.

With an average IQ of 85, India should be a typical Third-World pesthole. And, in some ways, it is.

But there are high-IQ groups within India which are endogamous. The entire system of Hindu castes may have been based on IQ.

In any event, with a population of a billion, the size of the high-IQ segment or caste is not insignificant. Some of the most outstanding physicians and scientists on the planet come from this group.

There is no similar phenomenon among the Bantu people of Africa, among the Arabs, or in Southeast Asia as far as I am aware. Perhaps Hinduism itself is an IQ-conservation strategy.

July 25

Richard W. writes:

Your additional comment is excellent. I think you explain very well your earlier claim that materialism harms the traditionalist ability to resist cultural destruction.

Plus, we need some relief from Gatesgate. My sides ache from laughing at how silly Obama et.al. look.

A liberal friend put forward this exact proposition, to wit: there is no God or spirit in man, but man does have a conscience that is innate and prevents humans from doing evil things. All evil in the world is a result of society perverting the innate goodness of humans through prejudices like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. [LA replies: That is a perfect statement of the liberal view of man.]

I have come to think of this philosophy as “imagine-ism” in honor of the famous John Lennon song which seems to postulate that if only all human institutions were eliminated we’d all live in harmony, plenty and happiness.

Sadly there is almost no historical support for the “Blue Lagoon” scenario working out. There are a myriad of examples of small groups going off into relative seclusion to create utopias of all sorts and they mostly end badly. Usually the more conventions that are thrown off, the worse things end. (Rajneesh-puram in Oregon threw off “repressive” ideas of sexual fidelity and personal responsibility and ended with huge outbreaks of VD, theft, molestation, violence and anger, as one recent local example).

The “Lord of the Flies” is a much more reliable guide to what inborn conscience will result in than “Blue Lagoon.” \

LA replies:

“The Lord of the Flies”—what an excellent book. I read it when I was 12 or 13. My sister, who was ten years older, gave it to me and urged me to read it. I don’t think our current society is capable of appreciating that book. In fact our current society has adopted the savage ethos that William Golding portrays so horrifyingly, and our society has rejected the civilization that arrives at the end of the book, in the person of a British naval officer, rescuing the boys from their savagery.

Also, the boy named Piggy, who tragically resists the savagery (he is fat and awkward and disliked by the other boys, but is also wise, good, and courageous), is a great character, a hero of our culture.

I think it may be time to read “Lord of the Flies” again.

Richard W. continues:

I went to read the Wikipedia entry on Materialism yesterday, which was helpful. I also called a friend who has read a lot more philosophy than I have to talk about it with him.

Your just-posted piece on this was the best yet. Yes, I agree. The net effect of the widespread acceptance of the materialist philosophy (which for most people is only known through Darwinism) is to create a society of fatalists incapable of making moral judgments.

That’s a really key point.

And yes, just like every other philosophy there are little offshoots and branches some of which try to support the existence of things like conscience, but not one in 1000 people knows anything about them.

Isn’t this what Nietzsche saw coming after the “death of God,” an era where all values would be re-evaluated and many thrown aside. An era of horrors to rival all horrors of the past. It has happened.

Which brings me around to atheism and materialism. Atheism is the other “popularized” version of materialism that many people are familiar with. What is interesting is that large segments of the population that have completely internalized Darwinism, and in fact view those who argue against it as fools and bumpkins, recoil at the idea of atheism. (Despite the recent spate of books attempting to popularize it.)

I suppose one can be non-religious, or non-Christian and still not be a materialist. But to be an atheist implies a certainty about the lack of God, and therefore spirit, and therefore much besides molecules, evolution, and materialism. I believe Dawkins, among the current atheism promoters, explicitly calls himself a materialist.

Have you seen this interesting offshoot, “Eliminativist materialism”? . There is so much fodder for discussion in it that I’ll kill my whole Saturday if I get started on it

Thanks for continuing to provide one of the most wonderful resources on the web.